Pages

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Evolution and the argument from authority

A common objection to creationism is an appeal to authority. Most scientists believe in evolution, so it must be true.

Problem is, scientific consensus can be unreliable. For instance, consider the recent JAMA study that acid reflex isn't actually cause by stomach acid backing up. If true, that falsifies 80 years of consensus. Consider the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of medical professionals who were giving patients the wrong explanation.

Another example is foods that were branded unhealthy for years, only to be rehabilitated. New FDA regulations created to mandate "safe" alternatives. New sin taxes. The food industry having to overhaul how food is cooked and processed, or what foods are even available, in what portions.

Or take the zealous promotion of "organic" or "unprocessed" foods.

This becomes dogma, followed by an overnight retraction. It would be good to maintain a running list of reversals.

12 comments:

Steve: medicine's flip-flopping on drugs and psychiatry's flip-flopping on its (faux)diagnoses could be added to your collection; the fen-fen debacle is the first that comes to mind in a long list generated during my own medical career. ISTM scientism is nought but an appeal to proven unreliable authority.

This post demonstrates confusion about the relationship of detailed factual findings and fundamental theory that explains those facts. Furthermore, it showcases confusion on how science is accepted.

Nothing about acid reflux upsets our fundamental understanding of biology. Using it as an example (and others like it) to supposedly cast doubt on evolution is like using some changed detail on the orbit of Pluto to cast doubt on heliocentrism.

Furthermore, scientists and laymen alike accept evolution because it is the theory that best explains the facts. Creationism, on the other hand, is premised on the supposed authority of a religious text.

"Furthermore, scientists and laymen alike accept evolution because it is the theory that best explains the facts. Creationism, on the other hand, is premised on the supposed authority of a religious text."

Those aren't the only options. Opponents of evolution don't just appeal to "a religious text", and when they do appeal to such texts, they often support that appeal with evidence.

And you should reread the original post in this thread. It's about the argument from authority, regardless of whether you believe in evolution. You're corroborating Steve's point rather than refuting it when you change the subject from the argument from authority to how evolution supposedly "best explains the facts".

i) I didn't appeal to a weaker argument to defeat a weak argument. Rather, I provided some counterexamples to an illicit argument from authority as a reason to believe in evolution.

There are people who say the mere fact that most scientists believe in evolution is sufficient reason for non-scientists to believe in evolution. The scope of my post was narrowly drawn. That is, indeed, how evolution is accepted by some people. Peter Enns is a good example.

ii) I didn't use the acid reflux example to cast doubt on evolution. Rather, I used that example to demonstrate that scientific consensus can be unreliable. Hence, mere appeal to scientific consensus is not a trustworthy basis for believing a popular scientific claim.

iii) You can assert that evolution "best explains the facts," but that assertion does nothing to refute my argument, inasmuch as I wasn't discussing the alleged evidence for evolution, but a reason why some people say we should believe in evolution, viz. just because so many scientists do.

iv) Creationism, per se, isn't premised on the authority of a religious text. Sure, there are Jews and Christians who espouse creationism due to Scripture.

There are, however, philosophical and scientific arguments for the theistic origins of the universe that are independent of Scripture. Likewise, there are many scientific arguments against evolution that are independent of Scripture.

Conversely, evolution has become a surrogate religion for many unbelievers. They accord it a dogmatic status out of proportion to the evidence or explanatory power of the theory.

You bring up points I readily concede (and never disputed in the first place) such as: “evolution has become a surrogate religion for many unbelievers.”

I’ve perused enough YouTube comment sections to realize that this is true at least anecdotally.

However, the primary contention in the OP is that scientific consensus can be wrong using one issue of small scope as an example to demonstrate that it can be as wrong on another of larger scope.

I contend that this conflated comparison is simply wrong and have yet to read a refutation of that argument.

I’ll repeat the illustrating analogy: it’s like saying that a minor correction in the orbit of Pluto casts doubt on heliocentrism.

Perhaps I’ll bring it home to you guys as Christian apologists: your argument here that acid reflux is as damaging to the biological theory of evolution is as weak as the argument that the “zombies” of Matthew 27:51-53 damage your theory of Gospel reliability.

1. T.A. Lewis has completely missed the point of Steve's post. Steve and Jason have already explained why.

Hence, even if (arguendo) the GERD example wasn't a good one, it doesn't change Steve's point about the argument from authority.

2. However, as far as the example about acid reflux which can develop into GERD is concerned, I presume this is the study in question. If so, the main issue with the study is its small sample size (n=12). But that's recognized by the authors of the paper. Indeed, the authors explicitly state it's a "preliminary study".

If the study is replicated, if say it becomes a solid RCT with a much more representative sample size, etc., and the results are the same, then its findings would be fairly significant. At the risk of oversimplification, it'd mean the cause of GERD is not the acid itself, but rather the immune system - or at least the immune system mediating the attack.

3. "Acid reflux is of small scope in relation to the larger biological theory it fits in."

Ironically, evolutionists often conflate evidence for microevolution (which is not in question) with evidence for macroevolution (which is in question). They often argue evidence for microevolution is tantamount to evidence for macroevolution.

The explanatory scope of a theory is a red herring. The issue is people who believe in evolution simply because most scientists believe in evolution. As I illustrate, that's an unreliable criterion. Your objection is irrelevant to the nature of my argument. I'm addressing an illicit argument from authority.

Many laymen admit that they aren't qualified to evaluate the putative evidence for evolution. Hence, for them, the fact that most scientists believe in evolution is their evidence for evolution. Because they lack the competence to assess the putative evidence directly, scientific opinion is their evidence for evolution.

Now, I'm making the elementary point that scientific consensus can be unreliable. And I'm just scratching the surface.